Massive wealth of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think it puts in perspective the MASSIVE amount of wealth the LDS Church has. Not just its stock portfolio. But also its property and not just ward buildings and temples. The sums are huge especially given the size of the church.  So maybe nothing new. But interesting.

Wealth is not money.  It is the value of assets that sometimes goes up and sometimes goes down.  Assets have to be sold to generate money.  One would expect and should want that asset values go up over time as the church grows. How much is too much is simply an issue of personal belief.  I think it is better to have a huge amount of wealth in times of prosperity so when the asset markets come crashing down, there still will be enough to take care of the needs.   A 100 billion today could be 40 or 50 billion in just a few months.  When markets crash, the do so quickly.

[Stargazer]

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Not resentful at all. Just find in interesting. And fascinating. Were I active I would likely cheer it on. But for me, it does confirm my decision to donate my $$ to other causes that really will focus on relieving human suffering. That has become important to me. Tithing just adds to the wealth of one of the most wealth organizations on the planet. That falls outside my personal value system.  But yea the self proclaimed Church of Jesus, the man who had nowhere to rest his head, has been incredibly successful by worldly standards in accumulating massive wealth.  Hurray for them.  

I wasn't referring to you as resentful, actually, nor the particular article's author necessarily. Although it might be applicable in his case. I also find the topic interesting and fascinating, btw.

The Lord himself wasn't here on earth to wallow in luxury. He was here to be the Lamb of God, and that purpose didn't require material wealth, which might have actually gotten in the way of his purpose. But do you really think that the Lord intended his church to be as poor as a church mouse?  Christ literally owns the Earth, after all.

I'm thinking that an organization that was intended from the moment of its inception in 33 AD to become a pervasive worldwide influence on the seven billion humans on the earth in the last days, leading into a time when, as expressed in the Book of Revelation, "the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" would be raised:

"Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." Rev 5:12

Must such an organization, created with divine authority and a mandate to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire world until He returns in glory, be necessarily threadbare and bereft of resources to carry out its work? Just to satisfy the critics who have their own agendas?

I want the Lord's church to prosper, both materially and spiritually, and be fully able to carry out the Lord's mandate, and not the mandate that its critics would lay upon it. That mandate absolutely requires worldly, as well as spiritual wealth.

In my humble opinion.

Which reminds me of my favorite part of Handel's Messiah:

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Stargazer

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think it is pretty clear Jesus of Nazareth did not condone the accumulation of massive wealth.  Do you really want to drill into that?

Massive is subjective.   You're using that term in a pejorative sense.  You don't know why the church is saving money.

And he [Joseph] gathered up all the ^afood of the seven years, which were in the land of Egypt, and laid up the food in the cities: the food of the field, which was round about every city, laid he up in the same.

Genesis 41:54

In this scripture Joseph is acting on inspiration received from the Lord.  He uses this food later when there is a famine in Egypt.  I don't know if he told everyone is Egypt why the extra food was being stored, maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

The point is you and I don't know why the church is saving money.  We don't know what instructions the Lord has given the leaders of His church in that regard.  I trust them with the money I donate.  I'm happy to obey the commandment that the Lord has given to pay tithes and offerings to the church.  Others may have different opinions which they are welcome to. 

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Wealth is not money.  It is the value of assets that sometimes goes up and sometimes goes down.  Assets have to be sold to generate money.  One would expect and should want that asset values go up over time as the church grows. How much is too much is simply an issue of personal belief.  I think it is better to have a huge amount of wealth in times of prosperity so when the asset markets come crashing down, there still will be enough to take care of the needs.   A 100 billion today could be 40 or 50 billion in just a few months.  When markets crash, the do so quickly.

Wealth is made up of assets money of which is one. But stocks, bonds, gold, property, crypto currency are all assets. For estate tax purposes the government taxes your wealth, not just your money.  So I am not sure the point.  My post is about wealth. Sure the market can decline and assets impacted by the stock market will go down. Real estate can go up and down as well. Still the Church has lots of assets that are worth a lot of $$.

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I wasn't referring to you as resentful, actually, nor the particular article's author necessarily. Although it might be applicable in his case. I also find the topic interesting and fascinating, btw.

The Lord himself wasn't here on earth to wallow in luxury. He was here to be the Lamb of God, and that purpose didn't require material wealth, which might have actually gotten in the way of his purpose. But do you really think that the Lord intended his church to be as poor as a church mouse?  Christ literally owns the Earth, after all.

I'm thinking that an organization that was intended from the moment of its inception in 33 AD to become a pervasive worldwide influence on the seven billion humans on the earth in the last days, leading into a time when, as expressed in the Book of Revelation, "the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" would be raised:

"Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." Rev 5:12

Must such an organization, created with divine authority and a mandate to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire world until He returns in glory, be necessarily threadbare and bereft of resources to carry out its work? Just to satisfy the critics who have their own agendas?

I want the Lord's church to prosper, both materially and spiritually, and be fully able to carry out the Lord's mandate, and not the mandate that its critics would lay upon it. That mandate absolutely requires worldly, as well as spiritual wealth.

In my humble opinion.

Which reminds me of my favorite part of Handel's Messiah:

 

I have never had a problem with the Church accumulating assets or paying its full time leaders a good salary for what they do.  We live in a modern world and the Church is an organization that does not produce a product to generate revenue.  The only $$ it gets is from donations and then what they make off of other investments.  I think have enough set aside to cover at least 3-5 years of expenses makes a lot of sense for the church. So now I do not think the church should be impoverished.  But I do think being worth likely at least $400 billion is pretty excessive especially in comparison to the humanitarian efforts of the church, which are wonderful, but could be much more proportionality.

[Stargazer]

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think it is pretty clear Jesus of Nazareth did not condone the accumulation of massive wealth.  Do you really want to drill into that?

I don't think it is clear at all, actually. I invite you to justify your contention. Where does Jesus of Nazareth forbid the accumulation of massive wealth? And is there a threshold that constitutes a line of delineation between mere wealth and massive wealth? I think that you're asserting a principle of the Gospel according to Teancum here. Of course you're perfectly free to assert a "good news" of your own. No argument there.

As for me, I think that you may be thinking of that time when Jesus asked the rich young man to give all his wealth to the poor. Matthew 19:21-23

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Now what happened here? Did Jesus say that rich people couldn't get into heaven? No he didn't. "hardly" means "with difficulty", which can be illuminated by Luke 8:14, where the Lord spoke of the parable of the seeds:

14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.

One of the first people I taught on my mission was a very nice man, of some social stature in his community, and he sent us away kindly after two discussions, saying that he would not be able to continue because what would he say to his friends if he joined the LDS church? He feared for his social standing and thus rejected the gospel. Or, at least, the LDS church.

While Jesus told the rich young man to give up his wealth, what did he say to Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, both rich men and members of the Sanhedrin? He certainly didn't tell them to dump their wealth, that we know of, and it's clear that they didn't donate all their wealth to the poor in either case. Nicodemus worked with Joseph after the Crucifixion in honoring the body of Jesus. Both Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are venerated as saints in both Roman and Orthodox Catholicism. Yet neither seems to have been required to give up his wealth.

So Jesus telling one person to dump his wealth constitutes a general commandment for every rich person to do likewise? I don't see it. Neither do I see a prohibition of His church of accumulating wealth. 

 

 

[Stargazer]

48 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't like cleaning either and I wish we didn't have to do it.

I was called to clean a couple of weeks ago.  I interrupted my usual Saturday morning workout routine to do it.  I showed up.  Building all locked up.  I texted the sister that called me to it; she never responded.  

Well, that sucks.

[Stargazer]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have never had a problem with the Church accumulating assets or paying its full time leaders a good salary for what they do.  We live in a modern world and the Church is an organization that does not produce a product to generate revenue.  The only $$ it gets is from donations and then what they make off of other investments.  I think have enough set aside to cover at least 3-5 years of expenses makes a lot of sense for the church. So now I do not think the church should be impoverished.  But I do think being worth likely at least $400 billion is pretty excessive especially in comparison to the humanitarian efforts of the church, which are wonderful, but could be much more proportionality.

For most of this, well said. And you're entitled to your opinion that $400 billion is excessive. I have a good couple years worth of food storage in my basement, and some might call that excessive, too. But in the event of a famine nobody is going to accuse me of being excessive. They will then be asking me for help in keeping themselves alive. Which I will give.

I've posted before in other threads about humanitarian efforts, how I don't believe the church to be a charitable organization, like for example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Charity is part of its mission, to be sure, but its primary mission is the promulgation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And to provide for the continuation of its own existence as a viable religious movement, in order to continue its God-assigned mandate.

[Maestrophil]

I have read this post and others, and I still don't get what the main arguments are against the church having wealth.  

Can the OP list bullet points of what he finds objectionable?

1.  The thought of poor being asked to give when the church has money?

2.  The thought that having money is against Jesus' teachings?

3. The thought that the church is not giving enough to charity?

???

 

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Maestrophil

[pogi]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

What was the context for the given quote?  Was he giving his opinion or defining doctrine for the church from that time forward?

It looks like the quote is still fairly recently being used in our manuals.

Here is the context:  

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-31?lang=eng

What a great day that would be, wouldn't it!?  I wouldn't put it past President Nelson to surprise us like that. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

In my personal opinion, having participated frequently in building cleanup in preparation for Sabbath services makes me more conscious of my responsibility in regards to the Lord's house, and makes me better appreciate the labor that goes into maintaining it. And I absolutely reject your contention that it is ludicrous to expect that "members need to clean the church to be humble and teachable". Some of them definitely need it. I will concede that some of those who might need it the most aren't helping out because it's "beneath them". But that tells a cautionary tale, too, doesn't it?

I think it is possible that even those who don’t show up to clean still are more careful in not leaving messes because they know it is volunteers who do the cleaning and can’t rationalize they are just giving a paid custodian more chances to earn money (assuming paid by the hour).

While I know many buildings are not in as good as shape as they used to be (though I have lucked out for always being in chapels that are very well cared for), I would really love to know if there is research out there on whether or not it takes less work now to keep buildings clean than before. Many people I know have expressed they are more conscious of the need to pick up after themselves and may do a bit of extra if they see a mess.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

 

I've posted before in other threads about humanitarian efforts, how I don't believe the church to be a charitable organization, like for example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Charity is part of its mission, to be sure, but its primary mission is the promulgation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And to provide for the continuation of its own existence as a viable religious movement, in order to continue its God-assigned mandate.

And I would add that, from the standpoint of a believer, contributing to the promulgation of the restored gospel IS being charitable and altruistic. 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I’m bummed that y’all have more money than the Catholic Church. Now when the Protestants talk about the great whore of Babylon, they’ll no longer point their fingers at us 😎

Is that including Roman Catholic real estate, or excluding it?

[rpn]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

THe idea that members need to clean the church to be humble and teachable is well, ludicrous.

Perhaps your wards then and now are among the few that didn't dismiss it as work beneath them that should be done by others who need the work that they don't want to do.    I meant humble and teachable in the sense that they do not consider themselves to be above do anything they are asked to do, or anything they see needs  to be done even if it isn't their job.   For men this way too often plays out in not doing equal cleaning and tending and diapering children, too.   And it is unworthy to expect others to clean up after ourselves and our family, when we can do it for ourselves.    If the edict ever changes, it likely won't be until everyone is onboard with pitching in to prevent messes where possible, clean up after themselves, and choosing to be part of the solution makes it clear that whatever lessons can be learned already have been.

 

Pride is a pretty destructive thing.  Certainly it interferes with God's purposes and plans.

Edited July 9, 2021 by rpn

[Calm]

1 minute ago, rpn said:

Perhaps your wards then and now are among the few that didn't dismiss it as work beneath them that should be done by others who need the work that they don't want to do.    I meant humble and teachable in the sense that they do not consider themselves to be above do anything they are asked to do, or anything they see needs  to be done even if it isn't their job.   For men this way too often plays out in not doing equal cleaning and tending and diapering children, too.   And it is unworthy to expect others to clean up after ourselves and our family, when we can do it for ourselves.    If the edict ever changes, it likely won't be until everyone is onboard with pitching in to prevent messes where possible, clean up after themselves, and choosing to be part of the solution makes it clear that whatever lessons can be learned already have been.

As someone who willingly and eagerly stayed home to clean house so my kids could go have fun with Dad because growing up it was always work first and then play…which amounted to no play as no time left by then really (at least that Dad also wanted to do) and now have kids who find it very difficult to not have a trashed living space even if organized and great workers elsewhere, I can testify to the need to teach people self responsibility and self care. Makes living with others and oneself much easier and allows everyone to have fun. 
 

Otoh, my kids know their parents really like being around them and have few self esteem issues…which is more important to me, so I see overall win needing small modification (set a small amount of time working before playing as saying we will work afterwards doesn’t cut it as reward is already given and motivation to get it done quickly is gone).

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

So how do you reconcile this comment from a prophet:

As I noted in another thread recently, I am literally sick and weary of people intentionally misusing this quote by ripping it from context. Read the whole damn sermon it comes from. I have, several times, and provided quotes to restore the necessary context in this very forum, but it appears no one actually wants to know the truth.

The whole point of Pres. Smith's sermon was the absolute necessity of tithing as the means of funding the Church's activities. In the infamous quotation, his point is that he is looking forward to the day when people will voluntarily pay their tithes at such a level that the Church will not need to ask for any additional money to keep the Church functioning.

Wonderfully, we got very close to that point in the late 1980s when annual budget payments were eliminated. Since then, we've also been able to stop requiring members to help build chapels and temples. As I learnt directly from our former area president in a meeting with him, every single missionary on this planet is subsidised through tithing, with that subsidy reaching 90 per cent or more in many cases, so we're not quite there yet but closer than we've ever been. And so on.

When I was a missionary, I bought every copy of the Book of Mormon I ever gave away. Same with pamphlets. There was a shop in the mission office for such purchases. We don't do that anymore, thankfully! I even paid monthly 'rent' to the Church for the use of a mission car, and then I paid to fuel the car and wash it every week. Do I need to go on?

Seriously, read the whole sermon. In it he talks about being shocked that so many Saints were finding excuses not to tithe because that is the very mechanism the Lord will use to fund His Church in perpetuity, and when voluntary tithes become sufficient, the Church will be able to do what it needs to on the basis of tithing alone.

To paraphrase your OP, yes, the current wealth of the Church is fabulous!

Edited July 10, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Meadowchik]

33 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As I noted in another thread recently, I am literally sick and weary of people intentionally misusing this quote by ripping it from context. Read the whole damn sermon it comes from. I have, several times, and provided quotes to restore the necessary context in this very forum, but it appears no one actually wants to know the truth.

The whole point of Pres. Smith's sermon was the absolute necessity of tithing as the means of funding the Church's activities. In the infamous quotation, his point is that he is looking forward to the day when people will voluntarily pay their tithes at such a level that the Church will not need to ask for any additional money to keep the Church functioning.

Wonderfully, we got very close to that point in the late 1980s when annual budget payments were eliminated. Since then, we've also been able to stop requiring members to help build chapels and temples. As I learnt directly from our former area president in a meeting with him, every single missionary on this planet is subsidised through tithing, with that subsidy reaching 90 per cent or more in many cases, so we're not quite there yet but closer than we've ever been. And so on.

When I was a missionary, I bought every copy of the Book of Mormon I ever gave away. Same with pamphlets. There was a shop in the mission office for such purchases. We don't do that anymore, thankfully! I even paid monthly 'rent' to the Church for the use of a mission car, and then I paid to fuel the car and wash it every week. Do I need to go on?

Seriously, read the whole sermon. In it he talks about being shocked that so many Saints were finding excuses not to tithe because that is the very mechanism the Lord will use to fund His Church in perpetuity, and when voluntary tithes become sufficient, the Church will be able to do what it needs to on the basis of tithing alone.

To paraphrase your OP, yes, the current wealth of the Church is fabulous!

Not sure why you think that context diminishes the general point. Like with the sexuality threads and the links you share there, you may think your offerings change basic points in either case when they actually don't.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yea I used to believe having access to prophets meant something. Thank you for confirming that they really have no better information access than you or me.  

It sure is fun to watch LDS defenders toss their prophets, seers and revelators under the bus.

That's your whole problem right here.  They never were supposed to be "infallible" and we are all supposed to be "prophets" for ourselves by seeking our own revelations.

Just think it through.  Suppose a prophet goes astray-- as some think Joseph might have.

Should we follow the prophet blindly?  Does that even make sense??

One man could destroy the whole church if we maintained that attitude, and it was never part of church doctrine.  We HAVE TO have the ability to go to God directly - or Moroni 10:4-5 is worthless to a convert!  For that well known Moroni quote to work it REQUIRES that we can go first to the Lord do see if the whole church is "true"- not ONLY what one prophet has taught.

The idea that prophets are infallible conflicts with the entire idea of personal revelation.   It just doesn't make sense.  We are told to get a testimony of every principle, and certainly that is one of the most important- whether or not the prophet is in error.

Yes it is one of our strongest ideas- that we now have prophets as in ancient times.

But we must not follow anything or anyone blindly.   If that has been taught in the past, it is wrong and contradicts the scriptures.

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Wealth is made up of assets money of which is one. But stocks, bonds, gold, property, crypto currency are all assets. For estate tax purposes the government taxes your wealth, not just your money.  So I am not sure the point.  My post is about wealth. Sure the market can decline and assets impacted by the stock market will go down. Real estate can go up and down as well. Still the Church has lots of assets that are worth a lot of $$.

The point is the church does not have that much money in the bank.  Real estate is not an asset that can be easily sold.  So yes the church has a lot of assets but so what.  Those assets will only continue to grow because the church will continue to buy more land for temples, wards, and other things that serve the purposes of the church.  The assets are not for an individual or a small group of people.   The best thing about real estate over stock however is a stock can go to zero.  The value of the land will never go to zero and even in a complete stock market crash,. the land and its purpose still exists.  So its good to buy a lot of land if one is able. 

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

1. We will paying tithing even in the Millennium, because it's an eternal principle.

 

In addition to living consecration and/or united order.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Not sure why you think that context diminishes the general point. Like with the sexuality threads and the links you share there, you may think your offerings change basic points in either case when they actually don't.

Pointing out that in his actual talk, Pres Smith was talking about no longer having non-tithing donations, not tithing donations doesn’t change the claim that Pres. Smith was talking about tithing?

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think it is pretty clear Jesus of Nazareth did not condone the accumulation of massive wealth.  Do you really want to drill into that?

Well he liked expensive homes.  Who is supposed to build the New Jerusalem?

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
            15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
            16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
            17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
            18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
            19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;
            20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
            21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

[poptart]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The problem I see is this, we are taught to be self reliant. But when it comes to feeding their children, paying medical bills or all bills. Why should the church direct them to pay tithing first and then possibly having to go to the church and ask for help. Which in turn the church asks them to ask family first before going to the church and the domino affect begins. They are felt to be a charity case. And tithing has been many things. In the bible I believe it was to help the pastor so that he could better preside over the congregation and not do outside work, at least that's how I read it. And in the early LDS church it was what was left over after paying the bills etc. or their interest. Now it's 10% of their income, which after reading an analysis of it recently, is much more than the original D&C describes it. Which is deceiving, and why the church could rise to be probably alongside the Catholic church as the wealthiest religions. Sure that would help the end days I guess, but the now days needs some help too, and could prevent the end days. Just my analogy. 

 

So that is a thing?  A Bishop badgering a poor member with medical bills to tithe first?  Interesting.

Been meaning to ask this whenever I see these threads, does the LDS church have plans for if/when the USA Decides to start bringing churches to heel?  The Christian population here is really in decline and thanks to politics they've alienated a ton of people who would happily vote things like their tax exempt status away.  People don't grow up in churches like they used too and a lot of millenials view them as entitled, homophobic racists who they'd rather not have around.  I get it, they're not all like that but when you look at how a lot of us had to grow up and how things are, here we are and there it is.  If churches start getting their tax exempt status reigned in as well as being controlled more, I'd think places in the world where they could operate like they do here would be limited.  Russia has the LDS church pretty much banned (for all intents and purposes), I doubt China will ever warm up to almost any US church due to politics and well, Western Europe doesn't seem too keen on becoming Mormon anytime soon and many people there still view you guys as a cult.  Lets see, that leaves Canada?  Australia?  Even then can churches operate as freely as they do here?  Also your freedom of speech as greatly curtailed there.  I know a lot of religious folks here stateside LDS and not love to run their mouths off about LGBTQ people, you can't get away with that in most other western countries.  

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Pointing out that in his actual talk, Pres Smith was talking about no longer having non-tithing donations, not tithing donations doesn’t change the claim that Pres. Smith was talking about tithing?

Pointing out the greater context does not mean his interpretation is correct, and it doesn't mean there's nothing to reconcile.

Fether was saying that tithing isn't about the church needing money and asking for it. But it can be that and has been that. President Smith talks about that in his remarks which is presumably why Fether was asked to reconcile them.

There have been times the church requested help. When members helped, of course it could be considered a tithe. When they helped above the morally-required amount, it could simply be considered a more generous tithe. 

Tithing has been about obedience and devotion *and* about heeding requests from leaders to help the church.

Also, in his remarks in this talk and more statements in that conference, tithing is also referred to as a voluntary donation. So I don't think that it's clear that Pres Smith is talking about non-tithing donations. In the contemporary vocabulary, tithing *is* a donation. But even if one interprets that President Smith is only talking about donations which aren't tithes, there's still the issue of the very real fact that the church still solicits fast offerings and other donations, also donations of services like cleaning, when it can very well afford to do without that "extra" help.

 

[Stargazer]

57 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Pointing out the greater context does not mean his interpretation is correct, and it doesn't mean there's nothing to reconcile.

Fether was saying that tithing isn't about the church needing money and asking for it. But it can be that and has been that. President Smith talks about that in his remarks which is presumably why Fether was asked to reconcile them.

There have been times the church requested help. When members helped, of course it could be considered a tithe. When they helped above the morally-required amount, it could simply be considered a more generous tithe. 

Tithing has been about obedience and devotion *and* about heeding requests from leaders to help the church.

Also, in his remarks in this talk and more statements in that conference, tithing is also referred to as a voluntary donation. So I don't think that it's clear that Pres Smith is talking about non-tithing donations. In the contemporary vocabulary, tithing *is* a donation. But even if one interprets that President Smith is only talking about donations which aren't tithes, there's still the issue of the very real fact that the church still solicits fast offerings and other donations, also donations of services like cleaning, when it can very well afford to do without that "extra" help.

 

Of course both tithing and non-tithing donations are voluntary. Now, I have seen IRS publications which characterized the income tax as voluntary, but it was only voluntary in the sense that if you want to stay out of prison you will gladly pay it. But there is no CRS to enforce your voluntary tithes and offerings, is there? Non-compliance keeps you out of the temple, but if you don't believe in the church anyway or want to contribute materially to its support, what difference does it make? And please don't bring up social pressure to attend the temple, or be active. It's no more terrible than the social pressure to stand for the national anthem, or saying "please" and "thank you." Or tipping your server. Or any number of other things which social pressure compels us to do.